JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar in a dispute about the agricultural land measuring 47 bighas and 4 biswas belonging to Kailash Chand. brother of Rajendra Kumar; out of which 30 bighas and 12 biswas were sold to respondent non petitioners on December 12, 1959. Kailash Chand after becoming the major filed a suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa on 2nd March, 1966 against the non-petitioners and Jai Kumar for cancellation of sale-deed under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The suit was dismissed in appeal and the Revenue Appellate Authority ordered that Khasra No. 1064/2 should be given possession of him by dispossessing non-petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, as they were trespassers. The execution was taken out and Inspector Land Revenue in obedience of the order of Tehsildar measured the land and found the respondents in physical possession of eight bighas and 3 biswas in Khasra No. 1064/2 and, therefore, he dispossessed them and handed over the physical possession of the land to the petitioner who is elder brother of Kailash Chandra. 2. The petitioner, therefore, claimed the physical possession but his grievance was that non-petitioners No. 1 to 7 threatened dispossession and therefore, on 7th March, 1979 he moved an application before Sub-Divisional Officer for taking proceedings under Section 145, Code of the Criminal Procedure. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I am of the opinion that the principal dispute in the present case is regarding the changing over khasra been recorded from old to new. This is a matter on which no finding should have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge at this stage, because the proceedings have been finally terminated, and both the parties are yet to produce their documents and evidence if any. 4. In view of this, the order of learned Sessions Judge, dated 29th February, 1980, is quashed so far as it relates to a finding about the possession of the finding of changing over of khasra numbers from old to new. Similarly, his observations and comments about the report of Naib Tehsildar and other documents consisting of report of Rameshwar Prasad and his statement are also premature and therefore, the entire finding contained in para no. 8 is quashed and set aside 5. Similarly, his observations and comments about the report of Naib Tehsildar and other documents consisting of report of Rameshwar Prasad and his statement are also premature and therefore, the entire finding contained in para no. 8 is quashed and set aside 5. However, I am in agreement with the view of the learned Sessions Judge,that the attachment order could not have been passed without a finding of emergency and further, that the attachment should have specified clearly and categorically the boundaries of the land to be attached, more so, because there was great confusion between khasra numbers, old and new. 6. The result of the above discussion is, that this criminal revision petition is partially accepted. The learned magistrate concerned is directed to reconsider the question of emergency, in case any such application is made and, decide the question of attachment afresh after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as they exist now. The setting aside of earlier order of attachment cum appointment of receiver is upheld. The record of the case would be sent back to the trial Court immediately.Revision partly accepted. *******